Posted by the_vast_mystery
(here)
Posted by jackovesk
(here)
Let me start off by saying, I have
'No' respect for Rush Limbaugh whatsover...
Well that already makes your response better than AJ's since you went so far as to say that and he minimized Rush's actions with his verbiage. Especially if there was a real story here, expert care should've been taken to make an initial statement of not just disagreement but outright disdain towards the content of Limbaugh's message. If you're smart enough to have researched the falseness of his remarks, and his history then you would take expert care to ensure that people saw your message about the "real story" and weren't distracted by you possibly say, seeming like you threw a towel of support to hate-radio. Again, Alex either did not do his research on the subject (because he would've pointed out Rush's lies if he had instead of parroting the Republican distortion of the facts) or he was lending moral support. Which is it? Incompetent or evil? You only get to pick one! ;p
Posted by jackovesk
(here)
Secondly, you really need to start educating yourself on who the 'Govt' actually is....
Hint: You are using a vague and non-descriptive phrase to try and hammer home an assumed point that I am ignorant. (and therefore not deserving of further response.) This does not work because you are subscribing to a specific, possibly even personal definition of what constitutes "government" and why. You have not stated this nor provided any material which would indicate this. In short, you are asking me to blindly agree with what may be your personal definition (that I would heretofore have no way of even knowing) while insisting that my failure to initially do so makes me ignorant. Doesn't quite work that way, now if you wanted to provide some actual substance to that argument (showing you are working from a tangible definition of government you did not just make up for purposes of this conversation) which would illustrate said point, that'd be different.
Posted by jackovesk
(here)
...and
'Why' the media not only went to town on 'Limbaugh' but
'Why' they made such a 'Big Deal' out of this story in the 1st place..?
Because he bald faced lied, for three days, on air, to shame a girl and make her feel subhuman because she apparently had the "audacity" to speak up with the men folk on contraception. It's being made a big deal because I and people like me are absolutely revolted by the man and this time he's pretty much crossed into outright slander. You think this stuff has no implications? Tell that to Dr. George Tiller, who was ruthlessly slandered on right wing radio until someone finally decided to gun him down in his church. I don't believe in laws against speech but I will absolutely vote with my dollars to take away any financial support from hate peddlers who are trying to instruct the nation on which group they should lynch mob next for daring to challenge Calvinist social norms.
If you wanted to actually give a further counter-argument you could do it with some substance that doesn't boil down to the inane rationalizations that left Rush's mouth when he realized the scandal wasn't going away and decided to make up a lame sounding conspiracy to somehow absolve himself of fault. Yes, sometimes people face repercussions from the things they say. Further, if you want to talk about lobbying groups that are a threat Media Matters is by far the most benign. No, let's talk about
ALEC which actually can be shown to send numerous bills to state legislatures to get rubber stamped by paid off politicians.
If you have some substance to your argument that is based on tangible evidence then by all means present it. However if you've only got hearsay then I hate to say it but Occam's razor would tend to indicate that it's most likely not a big deal regarding "Media Matters."
Posted by jackovesk
(here)
Once you can do that, I will be happy to converse with you...
You might not want to, but I tend to have high aspirations! ;D
It could be that I'm missing something as well but there's still the fact that AJ committed a most grievous error at the very very least. Something has to be done about this and just ignoring it is not good enough because if you don't challenge falsehood when you see it then you are not actually interested in truth, just in whatever supports your own confirmation bias. This means challenges must be made and accepted when there are points of contention. I'll fully admit to the possibility I could be very wrong at any point, but I don't back down until I see proof of it.
Posted by jackovesk
(here)
Hint: Forget about the
Left/Right Paradigm and start focussing on the
'End-Game'...
I am, part of that rests on being relentless in pointing out the inconsistencies/fallacies within people's arguments or implied statements to get to the bottom of their actual message. If people aren't able to mount a good, intellectual defense of what they know (with evidence) as well as the full how/why they know it, then they don't really know it very well, now do they? ;p
Posted by modwiz
(here)
The DailyKos(her) is no grassroots anything. It is zionist occupied territory. I was banned for opining on the brutality of the certain actors in Palestine and picked the wrong team. Grassroots and hasbara are very different realities. I know they consider themselves democrats, but there is no such things are political parties, only crime families. One for bleeding hearts and one for the heartless. The ziocrats rival the heartless when it comes to Palestine.
Got a link or any kind of proof to show what they banned you for was ridiculous? I'm interested.
P.S. if you want to accuse the website in its entirety of being Zionist you need more than that to back it up. You need to actually build a case of facts versus making an assumption because they banned you. I
can find numerous articles pointing out Israel's authoritarian folly on Kos, how is it a Zionist conspiracy again? If I can find this many critical of Israel posts this fast you need to do a little more to show what you're saying's true.
Posted by modwiz
(here)
There is no freedom of speech at the DailyKosher, unless you speak hasbara. I learned this personally and it was an eye-opener. Like voting for Obama and getting the invertebrate that is in the WH now.
Real education sometimes leaves welts.
Freedom of Speech is a loaded term when used in this context, you have no freedom of speech in the private sector. Nor do I on this website. I accept that in fact I could be banned for making this very post that challenges these assumptions you've made for no other reason than it offends some people that I ask questions. (not that I'm saying they'd ever do that, but it's still technically possible) The admins, if they wanted to, could, because it's private property. The fact you keep flinging the loaded terminology of oppression into this seems to suggest that you're looking for a justification to hate DK because they banned you. Now, I could be entirely wrong here. But you're going to need to do a
LOT better to convince me that this is an actual problem versus someone making something up to rationalize their past actions. Again, Occam's razor at work here. I've gone to the trouble of providing a substantiated counter-argument. I'd only appreciate if you could do the same in any future response.
Re: Exposed Disinfo/Strafor Double Agent Alex Jones cancels Speaking Tour.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks